Omniscience

Does God Repent? – The Bible Answer Man Clarifies

, , No Comment

The classic King James Version of the Bible says, “It repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart” (Genesis 6:6). Elsewhere, God says, “It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments” (1 Samuel 15:11). If God is perfect, how could he repent?

First, the Bible unequivocally teaches that God is perfectly good and thus incapable of doing evil (Psalm 5:4–5; James 1:13; 3 John 1:11). As such, God’s repentance must not be understood as entailing moral guilt. Indeed, the moral perfection of the Creator sets him apart from his sin–tainted creation (Leviticus 11:44–45; 19:2; 20:7; 1 Peter 1:15–16).

Read Post →

James Arminius On the One Will of God

, , No Comment

There is a connection between the Understanding of God and His Will that is overlooked or neglected by those who hold to a two wills in God theory. In this post we will discover what Arminius believed about God’s Knowledge or Understanding, and its relation to the one Will of God, with its various distinctives.

THE UNDERSTANDING OF GOD

Read Post →

On Omnitemporality

, , No Comment

One of the problems with attempting to discuss the issue of Foreknowledge as it relates to Free Will is that the term itself prejudices the discussion, bending it in a certain argumentative direction that the…

Read Post →

Why I am not an Open Theist

, , No Comment

by Roger E. Olson Someone asked me why I am not an open theist. I respect open theists for their dedication to biblical exegesis and for their determination to emphasize the personal nature of God.…

Read Post →

Friday Files

, , No Comment

Robert Chisholm’s article “ANATOMY OF AN ANTHROPOMORPHISM: DOES GOD DISCOVER FACTS?” explains OT texts like Genesis 18:20-21 and 22:12, which seem to indicate God does not know everything. Chisholm is not satisfied with saying they…

Read Post →

A Problem for Open Theism

, , No Comment

Open Theists deny God’s foreknowledge because they believe that if the future is known it is determined. Calvinists and Open Theists agree on a principle of foreknowledge. If the future is certain, it is necessary.…

Read Post →

Exciting News in the Addition of Two New Resources

, , Comment Closed

We have added two new resources to the site. The first to mention is the really exciting addition: The Puritan Arminian John Goodwin’s (1593-1665) magisterial Redemption Redeemed, which some believe to be the best defense…

Read Post →

Interesting Links 11-01-09

, , No Comment

The Spokane Examiner has an article entitled: A Methodist’s Take on Predestination and Free Will. (HT: Wesley Wong) Richard Coords takes a look at a dissertation that explores the potential Gnostic influence on Augustine’s doctrine…

Read Post →

Eric Landstrom, The General Theory of Relativity and the Nature of God Pokes Openness in the Eye

, , No Comment

It is argued by proponents of Openness as well as Calvinists that claim Openness is the logical conclusion for Arminianism that in order for people to be free the future must be somehow open. Their argument claims that if God’s knowledge of future unactualized contingencies is perfectly known, then creaturely freedom is a farce and whether we like it or not, our Lord has effectively predestinated all of creation. Countering the argument Arminians point out that simply knowing for sure that a person will freely do something is not enough for God to control or predestinate the world. This is because foreknowledge of an event does not imply direct influence or omnicausality, or absolute determination, but merely knows what other wills are doing. In other words, foreknowledge doesn’t mean absolute determination. Yet a fine point should be sharpened at this time: God not only grasps and understands what actually will happen, but also what could happen under varied possible contingencies.

Read Post →